Agreed on the Browns.
As for the Jags, let me ask you. Do their failures point to the FAs they've added, or to the poor QB they had drafted? They've had some of the worst QB play and still made it to the AFC Championship game, mainly due to the addition of their FAs.

Nick Foles is an upgrade for the Jaguars.....but from a Colts perspective, it doesn't matter. They beat us with Bortles and they beat us with Kessler, mainly because their defense owned the Colts. They could've beat us with their kicker at QB.
Shut out for 6 straight quarters against the Jags. This, to me, stings the most from the 2018 season.

I agree with your post, except for the second to last sentence in your point #3.
I personally believe that if Funchess plays well this year, he will essentially price himself out of Ballard's range. The odds are, this is very much a 1-year signing.

Not to be a jerk, I just don't have time to look up the details.
The notion that the Pats NEVER go after big name free agents is false. Their defensive philosophy relies on having a top tier shut down corner to take out the other teams best receiving option.

I think we'll be okay at CB next year (not great).
Desir was a journeyman CB. When he landed with the Colts, he fought to get to the starting lineup and earned his chance to start. He got better and better and played well last year.
If Ballard preaches keeping home grown talent, well, Desir grew in his profession as a Colt over the last few years. To me, if he let's Desir walk, it sends a bad message to the team.
Ballard will not reward you financially if you work hard enough to earn a sizable contract. We'll see in a few years what he decides to do with his draft picks.

Last year, through FA we added Ryan Grant. It was a 1 year deal and had no risk. It was intended to address our WR depth issues. It was a failed attempt, and because of that, we now have to spend up to 13 M to once again address the same issue. There is always a risk.
Funchess is another "1-year, no risk" signing. Similarly to Grant, I think if Funchess does not perform well, we do not sign him and it's a waste of money two years in a row.
If Funchess does perform really well, he'll earn a contract that Ballard may not be willing to pay. Once again, we will be back in this situation, looking to shore up the WR group, or spending draft picks on what could have been addressed already.
Meanwhile, D. Inman, who did perform well on his contract is not currently re-signed by the Colts possibly because he wants a contract that Ballard may now be willing to give.

My problem with these types of deals is that Ballard has recently shown this:
1. Rashaan Melvin was a player that developed with the Colts. He grew in his profession while he was a Colt. He earned a big contract and Ballard let him walk.
2. Desir was a journeyman until he got his chance with the Colts. He developed here, as a Colt and earned what will likely be a good payday for him. I don't think Ballard brings him back.
I guessing that if somehow Funchess plays well and earns a big contract next year, it won't be from Ballard.

I wanted to get your take on this, NCF.
Hypothetically, if Funchess performs well this year with Luck, he would be in for a big payday, wouldn't he? And Ballard isn't known for giving out big paydays.
Is this essentially just a 1-year deal? Especially if Funchess performs really well?

"According to a 2009 Sports Illustrated article, 78% of National Football League (NFL) players are either bankrupt or are under financial stress within two years of retirement."
Sounds like he'll fit in nicely with this statistic.